RDCMan and nested groups

RDCMan is a remote desktop connection manager that can add sanity when you have to deal with a large number of servers. I recently finished a job working with 135 SharePoint servers in 18 farms – trying to handle that with .rdc connections would’ve drive me insane.

RDCMan Remote Desktop Manager

RDCMan Remote Desktop Manager


You can read more about RDCMan in general here, and download it here.

The reason I’m posting this – if you look in the blog article I linked, you’ll see nested groups in the left hand pane with the servers. But reading the comments, you’ll note a lot of folks commenting they can’t create groups within groups. I’ve had the same problem, and it’s a bit frustrating.

I finally figured out the issue – you can’t have a group that contains both servers and other groups. You can either have a group that has other groups in it, or a group with servers in it. So if you have created a bunch of server groups, put some servers in it, then try to create a group within the group, you won’t be able to.

So if you’re struggling with trying to figure out why that guy did it, but you can’t – odds are that’s the reason why. Hope this helps.

A comment on “overqualified job applicants”

A reason I’ve heard for not hiring someone the interviewer feels is “overqualified” is:

“they are just desperate for any job and will take this one, then leave for something better.”

My only thought is “Have you considered trying to be ‘something better’ yourself?”

I mean, what kind of “something better” do they think folks will leave for? Better pay? Then you don’t pay enough. Flex time? Offer it. More interesting work? You’re kind of limited here, but there are ways to make work more interesting with some imagination.

“You’ll just leave me when you find someone better” is whiny…

Why I don’t use binary fields in databases

This is a debate that seems to come up way too often – about using binary fields in databases. When you’re young and hungry and all excited about all the field types in a relational database, you feel like they all have a place, so you need to use them all. They’re like Pokemon…

And so you’ll have some business-oriented data field that’s either “yes” or “no” and you think “Aha! I’ll use the bit field!” and move on. You have now set your claymore mine, pointing right at your foot.

Best case – the business software authors know better an use an Int of some flavor, and the report writers treat the bit field like an integer field that can be either 1 or 0. Worst case is that everyone codes it as a boolean field, from your back end all the way to the front. (This is most likely when “everyone” is you, because you’re the sole developer on the project)

Now at some point it’ll happen – the customer or expert who owns the business system will come to you and say:

“I know we told you that that field could only be ‘yes’ or ‘no,’ but we need to indicate if someone leaves it blank.” or “I know we told you we only needed ‘male’ or ‘female,’ but it turns we also need to be able to put ‘Not answered,’ ‘Transgender Male,’ ‘Transgender Female’ and a few others.”

Well, if the best case scenario happened, hopefully you can either convert the bit field to an Int directly, or perhaps create a replacement field and migrate data. However, if that binary definition for the field is riddled throughout the system, you’ve got a lot of work and testing ahead of you.

If you’re talking about real-world data, there are never “only two options.”

Now one disclaimer – with massive amounts of real-world data, you may run into storage concerns with respect to using one bit vs. 32 bits in an Int. So there may be cases where you do actually make a considered decision to use a bit for space considerations. But it should always be a careful, informed decision, not a default.